Universities Weblog

(Source: Everwonder.com)Just in time for the holidays comes this news from the Feds, here via the Chronicle of Higher Education:

About 90,000 students could be disqualified from receiving Pell Grants and other forms of federal and state financial aid under a change, scheduled to be issued on Thursday by the U.S. Education Department, in the formula the government uses to calculate a student's need for aid.

"For these students who are simply working to get ahead," said Mr. Corzine, "this is a scene from 'The Grinch who stole my education.'"

Nonetheless, enjoy the holidays.

A recent article in the Seattle Times is bound to confuse college applicants. The piece maintains that interest in early decision and early action programs is declining. Read this:

For the past two school years, a rising number of colleges have reported a drop in early applicants, according to new data from the National Association for College Admission Counseling. For schools…that offer binding early-decision programs, 45 percent reported a decline, compared with 24 percent the year before.

The same pattern holds for a similar, nonbinding program called early action, in which colleges accept students in December or January, but don't expect them to commit until May.Fair enough. However, the reporter then states there's been no drop in early applicants to Ivy schools, leading one to believe the Ivies are getting the lion's share of such activity. But here's more:

And the number of students who applied under early-decision programs last school year is up, too. Last year, the total was 78,847, up from 70,186 the year before, according to the College Board.

Many Northwest colleges and universities report continued growth in early applicants, too. At Gonzaga University, for example, early-action applicants grew 12 percent last fall and roughly another 7 percent this year, said Julie McCulloh, dean of admission.

So colleges are reporting a drop in early applications, but the number of students using that option is rising. The logic baffles me. If 45 percent of colleges reported a decline, wouldn't that suggest a lower number of such applicants nationwide? Are more applicants concentrated in fewer schools?

Something doesn't add up.

(Source: Realitynewsonline.com)So I admit it: I watched The Apprentice 2. And 1, for that matter. And American Idol. But I digress….

Why do I mention this? Because higher education appeared front and center in last night's finale. Jennifer, sporting degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law School, squared off against Kelly, a West Point graduate with law and business degrees from UCLA. Throughout the series, Trump and the candidates openly discussed educational backgrounds; one candidate, Andy, was referred to only as a "recent Harvard graduate."

At one point in last night's climactic scene, Trump asked Jennifer if her schools are "better" than Kelly's. She replied that her alma maters are always ranked at the top (no doubt referring to the U.S. News rankings). Kelly, to his credit, didn't stoop so low, suggesting he was proud of his schools and had nothing bad to say about Jennifer's.

I wonder what was Trump was getting at with that question, because it was rather silly. Is Princeton better than West Point, or vice versa? They have radically different missions and programs, so how can you compare them? Even U.S. News, which often lumps dissimilar institutions together, doesn't mix those two. I think The Donald simply was trying to stoke the fire. Neither took the bait.

In the end, Kelly, the West Pointer, won. The Donald didn't buy Jennifer's self-congratulatory argument that 1) she studied hard; 2) she got good grades; 3) she went to law school; 4) she works as an attorney; and 4) therefore, she should become a CEO. At least Kelly has an MBA and a proven track record in the business world.

Or maybe Trump, a Penn graduate, couldn't stomach hiring a Princetonian. Then again, if Trump favored fellow Quakers, he'd have had Kevin (always wearing "Ivy League athletics" t-shirts) and Pam in the finals.

Next season, starting in January, promises to highlight higher education even more. The show will pit college graduates ("book smarts") against high school graduates ("street smarts"). Will the college folks showcase the value of their education, or will the diploma-wielding challengers prove you don't need degrees to succeed?

Stay tuned.

(Source: University of Notre Dame)He wasn't their first choice, but perhaps he'll prove to be a good one. Notre Dame has chosen Charlie Weis, the New England Patriots' offensive coordinator, as their new head football coach. The university hopes Weis can bring some of his Super Bowl magic to South Bend.

Weis calls this his "dream job." I can see why. Notre Dame is his alma mater (he didn't play football there). For those keeping score, Weis's contract covers six years at $12 million. Not bad pay for a nonprofit. Oh, and he'll still have a quarterback named Brady (as in Quinn, the ND QB).

But not all is rosy for the university. It came under fire for axing Tyrone Willingham, the first black head football coach in school history. Willingham had a somewhat inglorious three seasons with the Fighting Irish, but many critics said he wasn't given enough time to build a successful program. Most vocal was outgoing president Edward Malloy, who said he was "embarrassed" by the decision. His assistant even shaved her head in protest.

So Weis comes into a sticky situation, where, like all others before him, he'll be expected to succeed. And fast. He'll have to recruit players, abide by NCAA regulations, and keep an eye on graduation rates.

Moving from the pro ranks to the college game isn't easy, though some have done it well (e.g. Pete Carroll, another Patriots refugee, at Southern Cal). Here's hoping Weis doesn't go from the Super Bowl to the toilet bowl.

Your college major doesn't matter. Just pick a subject that appeals to you and worry about job prospects later.

Bad advice, at least if you heed the warnings in the College Majors Handbook: The Actual Jobs, Earnings, and Trends for Graduates of 60 College Majors (JIST Works, 1999). The authors, three economists from Northeastern University, demonstrate that college majors do affect income potential and therefore dictate "success." accountants and engineers, for instance, earn far more on average than educators and poets.

Not surprisingly, critics are quick to cite the dangers of equating dollars with success, and suggest that students should be more open-minded in choosing majors. Here's a bit from a New York Times piece:

Trudy Steinfeld, director of career services at New York University, tells students that majors should be less about preparing for one career and more about preparing for many options, and probably several careers, over a lifetime. She agrees with the Northeastern data showing that finance, accounting and technology degrees will lead to higher salaries. But she says she also sees liberal arts majors who become equally successful.

"College should be about stretching yourself and discovering who you are and what you want," Ms. Steinfeld said. "Schools should not become factories. There are hundreds of majors out there, and it's almost always a mistake to base the decision on money alone."Makes sense to me. I'd add this: If you choose a major primarily because of expected future earnings and not because you actually enjoy the subject, you probably won't earn good grades. That, in turn, might diminish your employment prospects. Pick a subject that interests you and concentrate on doing well. Your major doesn't define who you are and certainly doesn't determine or limit your career options as much as you may think. That's especially true if you're considering grad school.

Wondering which colleges fare best in placing graduates in the top professional schools? Thinking long-term about law school and trying to decide if Dartmouth or Williams is a better place to start? If so, you might want to consult a report produced by classroomedition.com, an education site maintained by the Wall Street Journal.

According to the findings, the top 10 feeder colleges to elite business, law and medical schools are as follows:

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Princeton
4. Stanford
5. Williams
6. Duke
7. Dartmouth
8. MIT
9. Amherst
10. Swarthmore

To produce this study, editors at the site looked at enrollments at the "top five" business, law and medical schools. They assessed the undergraduate backgrounds of 5,100 students entering these 15 schools last fall. What's more, they adjusted for institutional size so smaller colleges wouldn't be penalized.

It's a great idea, but with obvious shortcomings. First, why limit each field to only five professional schools? Second, the choices seem somewhat arbitrary (e.g. Stanford isn't included among law schools but is ranked third by U.S. News; in medicine, Penn and Duke tie for fourth in U.S. News, but aren't considered by the WSJ). Third, capturing only one year of entering students is hardly enough. No doubt a five- or 10-year analysis, if possible, would shed more light on the subject, though perhaps many of the top feeder schools would remain on the list.

So take it for what it's worth: an interesting exercise that's somewhat useful if you're targeting a top professional school.

(Source: Harvard University)Who's number one…in the world? According to the (London) Times Higher Education Supplement, it's Harvard. The publication ranked the top 200 universities, representing 29 nations. Criteria included a reputational survey of 1,300 academics in 88 countries (50 percent); ranking of research impact (20 percent); faculty-to-student ratio (20 percent); percentage of international undergraduate students (5 percent); and percentage of international faculty (5 percent).

Here are the top 10:

1. Harvard University
2. University of California-Berkeley
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4. California Institute of Technology
5. Oxford University
6. Cambridge University
7. Stanford University
8. Yale University
9. Princeton University
10. ETH Zurich

Note the dominance of American institutions, which occupy seven of the 10 spots. The next 10, however, include institutions from six countries (four are American).

As for the race for first, it wasn't even close. So says the Times:

It will take a big change to shift Harvard University from top place…. Strong performances on all five measures confirm what most observers have long suspected: that Harvard is in the position to which all leading universities aspire. The riches of its endowment will make the university hard to challenge, but its performance is not simply a matter of money. A reputation for being the best in the world Acts as a magnet for the most talented students and staff.

What does all this mean? For American universities, probably nothing. Here, U.S. News is still king, the final word on educational rankings, at least for the millions of students who put stock in what that publication says.